Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
Dear Steve, I am very greatful to you raising this important question at this stage. The curve out issue is troublesome for several people ,in particular several GAC memebrs. I just raised this growning concerns and some people saying the I am the only one woulded and I have to breat for an hour and do something else ,a very unfreuindly statement from colleagues about me. At this very important srtage of the work ,we must hold on publishing the report and stop sending it to the chartering organizatiobns and try to rediscuss the matter on the next call on 26 Februray with a view to find an acceptable solution. For the time being 11 countries expressed their concerns about the carve-ot and there will certainly be more at GAC next call on 29 as well as in the ICANN 55 GAC meeting . THE CO -CHAIRS ARE STROGLY URGED TO THINK FOR SOME TIME BEFORE DOING SOMETHIBNG WHICH MAY NOT BE REPAIRABLE Carve-out as developped is a negative point in the process .Regards Kavouss 2016-02-19 17:27 GMT+01:00 Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>:
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kavouss, Thanks. Steve On Feb 19, 2016, at 12:00 PM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Steve, I am very greatful to you raising this important question at this stage. The curve out issue is troublesome for several people ,in particular several GAC memebrs. I just raised this growning concerns and some people saying the I am the only one woulded and I have to breat for an hour and do something else ,a very unfreuindly statement from colleagues about me. At this very important srtage of the work ,we must hold on publishing the report and stop sending it to the chartering organizatiobns and try to rediscuss the matter on the next call on 26 Februray with a view to find an acceptable solution. For the time being 11 countries expressed their concerns about the carve-ot and there will certainly be more at GAC next call on 29 as well as in the ICANN 55 GAC meeting . THE CO -CHAIRS ARE STROGLY URGED TO THINK FOR SOME TIME BEFORE DOING SOMETHIBNG WHICH MAY NOT BE REPAIRABLE Carve-out as developped is a negative point in the process .Regards Kavouss
2016-02-19 17:27 GMT+01:00 Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>: CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Steve: Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour (metaphorically speaking): · "The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN." -- Does that mean the Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice (whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long established practice is not)? · " If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone."-What is the Board suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation? Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
Dear Phile There is a solution for the matter. Wait until 26 Feb call AND IN THE MEANTIME DISCUSS THE MATTER TO FIND A SOLUTION. One solution would be the removal of Carve-out AND retention of the Rec. 11 before Call 80 i.e. No CARVE-OUT CONCEPT Two threshold options; simple majority and 2/3 super majority Send it with that to chattering organization .In the meantime ,further discuss the matter without Carve-out with a view to opt for either of two threshold options That was the situation at CALL 80 when Steve DelBianco submitted the draft We hear serious objections several others would join the concerns: now 11 Governments. Those have not voiced should not necessarily be considered as have no concerns. We made an attempt to have consensus but it does not appear to work at all We may perhaps need to immediately change the concept as we did changing many times from Voluntary Membership to Designator Member and from Designator Member to Sole Member and from Sole Member to Sole Designator. Why we did such a gymnastic, because either it did not work or there were objections How many time we have change the threshold of empowering community. Several times Nothing wrong in that. I know one So may like very much the existing formulation but several Governments from other constituency dislike it, We cannot satisfy one on the expense of dissatisfying others. We are all member of ICANN family and we must understand each other’s concerns Let us make every possible effort to make people comfortable to join others. Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:35 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com>:
Steve:
Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour (metaphorically speaking):
· “The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN.” -- Does that mean the Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice (whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long established practice is not)?
· “ If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.”—What is the Board suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation?
Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position.
Best regards, Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Kavouss and Phil - Without comment on the substance of the most recent Board intervention, waiting until 26 FEB introduces significant challenges in the GNSO’s ability to consider and (presumably) approve the final CCWG report in Marrakesh. In fact, our schedule was extremely tight with the expected publication date of 19 FEB. Thanks— J. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com<mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2016 at 11:56 To: Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org<mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org>>, Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net<mailto:thomas@rickert.net>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>, Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org<mailto:icann-board@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out Dear Phile There is a solution for the matter. Wait until 26 Feb call AND IN THE MEANTIME DISCUSS THE MATTER TO FIND A SOLUTION. One solution would be the removal of Carve-out AND retention of the Rec. 11 before Call 80 i.e. No CARVE-OUT CONCEPT Two threshold options; simple majority and 2/3 super majority Send it with that to chattering organization .In the meantime ,further discuss the matter without Carve-out with a view to opt for either of two threshold options That was the situation at CALL 80 when Steve DelBianco submitted the draft We hear serious objections several others would join the concerns: now 11 Governments. Those have not voiced should not necessarily be considered as have no concerns. We made an attempt to have consensus but it does not appear to work at all We may perhaps need to immediately change the concept as we did changing many times from Voluntary Membership to Designator Member and from Designator Member to Sole Member and from Sole Member to Sole Designator. Why we did such a gymnastic, because either it did not work or there were objections How many time we have change the threshold of empowering community. Several times Nothing wrong in that. I know one So may like very much the existing formulation but several Governments from other constituency dislike it, We cannot satisfy one on the expense of dissatisfying others. We are all member of ICANN family and we must understand each other’s concerns Let us make every possible effort to make people comfortable to join others. Kavouss 2016-02-19 18:35 GMT+01:00 Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>>: Steve: Some questions regarding this Board input at the 59th minute of the 11th hour (metaphorically speaking): · “The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN.” -- Does that mean the Board is opposed to raising the raising the threshold for rejection of GAC advice above majority vote, as that is a change in long established practice (whereas locking in a definition of GAC advice that memorializes its long established practice is not)? · “ If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.”—What is the Board suggesting should be removed from the final Recommendations at this very late hour? And how can something be left for the implementation phase if it is removed from the Recommendations, as those involved in Bylaws drafting that is the heart of the implementation phase should have no latitude in introducing any matter that is not part of an approved Recommendation? Your response would help clarify our understanding of this new Board position. Best regards, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7303 / Virus Database: 4530/11623 - Release Date: 02/14/16 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear All, It may not be appropriate to paint the Board's Comment as *«Interference"* Comments are comments People may agree or may disagree with that but should not make value judgement There is no need that someone be angry. Angry with whom and why? And on what ground If we do not like a comment why we should be angry We should have the ability to listen to each other's comment even if we do not like them just friendly and nicely say we do not agree There is no Earthquake no Tsunami no Hurricane .Why we should be angry. WE SHOULD TALK TO EACH OTHER FRIENDLY AND NICELY AND PATIENTLY TKS AND BEST REGARDS KAVOUSS 2016-02-19 19:08 GMT+01:00 Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>:
On 19/02/16 17:56, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Send it with that to chattering organization .
I'm going to use this term from now on.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO. Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I say anything further it will be far too intemperate. Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GACs ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Boards concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANNs bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANNs model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWGs proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Paul, I am a participant on the list.I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC. I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view. Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine. I am studying all options. And I am not laying down any marker.After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not even exist. We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in the right direction. Let's keep up that effort. I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out.BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing. Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this point. M
From: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com To: steve.crocker@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500 CC: icann-board@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I say anything further it will be far too intemperate. Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Sorry Marilyn, but the gNSO did, in fact, lay down a marker on this .. and it is unwise to disregard that. Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us16?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=em ail&utm_campaign=speakers-us2016> From: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 1:16 PM To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>; 'Steve Crocker' <steve.crocker@icann.org>; 'Mathieu Weill' <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>; 'León Felipe Sánchez Ambía' <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; 'Thomas Rickert' <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: 'Icann-board ICANN' <icann-board@icann.org>; 'Accountability Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out Paul, I am a participant on the list. I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC. I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view. Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine. I am studying all options. And I am not laying down any marker. After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not even exist. We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in the right direction. Let's keep up that effort. I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out. BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing. Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this point. M
From: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> To: steve.crocker@icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org> ; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> ; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> ; thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500 CC: icann-board@icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> ; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I say anything further it will be far too intemperate. Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> ; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx> >; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net <mailto:thomas@rickert.net> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org <mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org> >; Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org <mailto:icann-board@icann.org> >; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GACs ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Boards concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANNs bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANNs model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWGs proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear Marilyn Tks Well done Kavouss 2016-02-19 19:16 GMT+01:00 Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@hotmail.com>:
Paul, I am a participant on the list. I am also a part of the GNSO, as a member of the BC.
I am not sure that there is a single GNSO view.
Each Constituency will have to discuss and determine.
I am studying all options. And I am not laying down any marker. After all, if I had, or anyone else had, back in 1998, ICANN would not even exist.
We have done pretty well by not laying down markers but just stumbling in the right direction.
Let's keep up that effort.
I know all of you who have done so much work are tired and worn out. BUT, there is so much progress. It is amazing. Let's not lose our willingness to keep up the right direction at this point.
M
From: paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com To: steve.crocker@icann.org; Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr; leonfelipe@sanchez.mx; thomas@rickert.net Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2016 12:41:05 -0500 CC: icann-board@icann.org; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
Just to lay down a marker, so that silence is not taken as assent, this proposal from the Board is completely unacceptable to me and I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
Right now I am so angry at the Board's last minute interference that if I say anything further it will be far too intemperate. Paul
Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message----- From: Steve Crocker [mailto:steve.crocker@icann.org] Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>; Thomas Rickert <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve.crocker@icann.org>; Icann-board ICANN <icann-board@icann.org>; Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out
CCWG Colleagues,
The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being
raised
that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.
The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG.
We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone.
We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues.
Thank you,
Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 19-Feb-16 19:41, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
not all. I think Steve's comments were reasonable. Since it was a compromise I stayed away from the discussion of carves out, which have been a somewhat flawed idea from the start in my opinion. I think making a concession on the unanimity rule in this one case is quite reasonable. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
+1. In the VERY edge case that we are considering, and the onerous implications of removing the Board, I have no problem whatsoever requiring unanimity of the remaining AC/SOs. Alan At 20/02/2016 12:14 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
On 19-Feb-16 19:41, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
not all. I think Steve's comments were reasonable.
Since it was a compromise I stayed away from the discussion of carves out, which have been a somewhat flawed idea from the start in my opinion.
I think making a concession on the unanimity rule in this one case is quite reasonable.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Thank you very much Avri. I made a minority statement in the same direction. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Le 20 févr. 2016 à 18:14, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> a écrit :
On 19-Feb-16 19:41, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:
I suspect to most if not all of the gNSO.
not all. I think Steve's comments were reasonable.
Since it was a compromise I stayed away from the discussion of carves out, which have been a somewhat flawed idea from the start in my opinion.
I think making a concession on the unanimity rule in this one case is quite reasonable.
avri
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Steve, First, like Phil and Alan, I found your e-mail confusing. You seem to suggest a WS2 item to consider “how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN” at one point. But it could also read as a proposal to kick the matter of thresholds and the GAC carve-out to WS2. I don’t see how the CCWG-Accountability proposal could be seriously taken as a final product as that would leave fundamental aspects of ICANN governance unresolved. Samantha Eisner later clarified that your position was just a reiteration of Bruce’s proposal earlier this week. I will note that there is one option that would resolve this issue far more simply: if the GAC’s privileged advisory power were eliminated, we would no longer need the GAC carve-out. If we are opening this discussion up again, perhaps we should revisit that. Second, I view with skepticism your statement that this is “not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model.” Funny, but I don’t recall that point being made by Bruce when he initially voiced the Board’s concerns about the GAC carve-out. Those discussions centered entirely around the threshold for recalling the Board under the GAC carve-out. Samantha Eisner’s e-mail also casts doubt on the statement. She confirmed that the Board is fine with the GAC carve-out language except for the 3 SOAC threshold to remove the Board. It is hard not to see your e-mail as: (1) a self-interested effort to capitalize on the current time-crunch to pressure the CCWG to accede to the Board’s demands; (2) a kowtow to the 10-12 governments raising an objections on this matter, while ignoring countervailing objections from non-government participants; or (3) using the minority GAC objection as an excuse to excise the GAC carve-out to address your initial concern indirectly. I don’t know which is accurate, but none reflect well on the Board. In particular, the Board’s statement following so closely on the heels of objections raised by a handful of governments and should ring alarm bells in NTIA and Congress about ICANN’s ability to resist government influence post-transition and illustrates why the GAC carve-out was proposed in the first place. Finally, the Board’s repeated tendency to insert itself at the 11th hour has cost all of us countless hours of time and effort by forcing us to reargue painful compromises and, in my view, violates the Board’s commitment to send the transition proposals forward as drafted “promptly and without modification” even if it contains provisions that the Board opposes. The experiences over the past week only solidifies my conviction that the EC must to retain reasonable ability – not requiring unanimous support among the decisional participants – to recall the Board both for decisions that violate ICANN Bylaws and Articles and for other matters. Regards, Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Steve Crocker Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 11:28 AM To: Mathieu Weill; León Felipe Sánchez Ambía; Thomas Rickert Cc: Steve Crocker; Icann-board ICANN; Accountability Community Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC’s ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board’s concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN’s bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN’s model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG’s proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
Hi Steve, As I always want to do when responding to one of your posts where I may have a different perspective, let me acknowledge my respect for you and my appreciation for all you've done for this community and the internet generally during the past four decades. Lest I be accused of ignoring one of those whom I represent on the GNSO Council, Paul Rosenzweig, let me state that I do agree with Paul that should your proposal be adopted it would endanger GNSO approval of several recommendations in the CCWG package. I think we can all agree that would be unfortunate and best avoided if we can. Steve, I would ask that you check with ICANN's paid consultants on government affairs and ask them to evaluate the prospects before Congress of a transition proposal where the final status of governments is listed as 'to be announced' (aka WS2). I'm not sure it would improve our chances there. Rather than focus on substance at this moment, though, I'd like to ask you a question more of procedure: What do you want us to do with your proposal? The review of the third draft proposal is over. Changes were discussed and made. The GAC carve out has certainly prompted extensive discussion on the list and now, via the fine Minority Statement by Olga Cavalli, we know that 7.3% of the GAC has a problem with this part of the Supplemental Proposal. Kavouss tells us there will be more governments weighing in on the matter in support of Olga's statement. Kavouss is a gentleman and a man of his word, I believe him, but let's face it: you could triple the support for the proposal and still only one in five governments will be on record favouring this view. The deadline for minority statements was yesterday. So I presume you do not intend your statement to be published in that section of our report. I guess then that your post is purposed for the 48 hour review by CCWG members which ends at 23:59 UTC this evening, or in about 4 hours. It was always my belief that this 48 hour review was more a mechanism to catch typographical errors or omissions than anything else. Perhaps I am wrong. Steve, do you expect us to change the substantive content of our Supplemental report on the basis of a Board submission that was posted on a Friday about seven and a half hours before the conclusion of a review, not comment, period by CCWG members? This after weeks of consideration of this issue? If so, that expectation worries me far more than the substantive content of your post. I grew up about four miles from the home of John Adams, the second President of the United States of America. As a kid I was force fed a lot of information about President Adams and of his son, the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. One quote of President Adams has stayed with me, though, and informed me as to the first principle of good governance. President Adams said we needed to be "a government of laws, not of men". That is as true of the ICANN of today as it was of the United States of the 1700's. We need to follow President Adams' advice. Steve, I am concerned. I recall Istanbul where the Board dumped 88 questions on the CCWG the night before our face to face meeting. I recall Dublin where shortly before ICANN 54 the Board shot down the groups reference model. Today's last minute post sadly makes those two instances seem like models of procedural respect and restraint. We have a fine Charter. We all have roles to play. Might I suggest it is not the proper role of the Board, or any other group or individual, at this stage of the process to use a 48 hour review period to try to force or even suggest changes to this groups substantive work. We are now approaching the period where the Supplemental Report is to go to the chartering organisations. Those of us in the chartering organisations will take a look at the report, evaluate the recommendations and report back to our exceptional co-chairs. It is then that the Board should consider our proposal with reference to its resolution of 16 October 2014. That stated, it is a shame the Board did not inform us of its concerns on this matter when the rest of us were crafting our compromise solution it seems to have problems with. That time is now past and we as a community need to move on in accordance with our Charter. I understand the desire for strong personalities and groups to try to impose their will on processes, often with the best of intentions. We wouldn't be here today had it not been for one such personality, Jon Postel, who I was fortunate enough to know when I was a student at USC. We're no longer in the more informal early days of the internet, Steve, and we are trying to show the NTIA and the world this organization can be trusted with a vital international common resource. We need to show that we as a community have reached the level of maturity where we truly are an organization governed by laws and rules rather than by personalities and power plays. If we are not at that place today then ICANN is not ready for independence. I would respectfully encourage the Chairs to take note of Dr. Crocker's last minute intervention but to not allow it to change in any way our plans going forward. Let's follow our Charter, our published plan, and show we are capable of responsible governance ordered by procedure and structure rather than by personality and capricious last minute changes and proposals, even if they are made by good people with the best of intentions. Edward Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@icann.org> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 4:29 PM To: "Mathieu Weill" <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>, "León Felipe Sánchez Ambía" <leonfelipe@sanchez.mx>, "Thomas Rickert" <thomas@rickert.net> Cc: "Steve Crocker" <steve.crocker@icann.org>, "Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board@icann.org>, "Accountability Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Board position re the GAC carve out CCWG Colleagues, The Board has a serious and continued concern about the issues being raised that may result in the reduction of the GAC's ability to participate in community decision making. This is most noticeable in the question of thresholds for board removal, however this is not an issue about removal or even thresholds, it is one part of the community being (or perceiving that it is being) sidelined. The Board's concerns with this issue are not about Board removal, but about maintaining the balanced multistakeholder model. The Board is against any changes to the long established equilibrium and fairness among the different stakeholders within ICANN. The Board has long supported a threshold of four participants for Board removal in the ultimate escalation method proposed by the CCWG. Selecting one portion of the ICANN community and removing them from the equation - just through the ability to say that the community is unhappy with the acceptance of GAC advice that is within ICANN's bylaws - raises significant concerns about how the multistakeholder model, and the ultimate stability of ICANN as an organization, can be maintained. This carved out exception undercuts the established role of governments within the multi stakeholder process, and could introduce new issues with the acceptance of ICANN's model undermining the work of the CCWG. We understand that there are concerns with this path from within other parts of ICANN community, including members of the GAC and ALAC. The best course, in our opinion, would be a careful and objective discussion of the whole matter of how advice from ALL parties is appropriately considered within ICANN. If there is a graceful way to remove this matter from the immediate pressure of the deadline of submitting this proposal and make it a priority matter for either the implementation phase or Work Stream 2, we think there will be a solution which is genuinely good for everyone. We encourage you to share the CCWG's proposal with the Chartering Organizations while the dialog on this outstanding point continues. Thank you, Steve Crocker Chair, ICANN Board of Directors _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (12)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Edward Morris -
James M. Bladel -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Marilyn Cade -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Schaefer, Brett -
Steve Crocker -
Tijani BEN JEMAA